if you use a local email client, what is relevant is under which circumstances it decides to accesss those image urls for display, regardless of protocol. if you use a web client you are screwed anyway (as in "you have absolutely no control over what is accessed by whom and when").
Another breathless story about how piracy is maybe good because it might somehow act as free advertising, wow this one is just totally different from the last 43, because this time it's heavy metal. I'm finally convinced, let's roll back the clock and turn napster back on.
even before napster was shut down there were already quite a few serious studies demonstrating that p2p actually increases the sales of the few top titles (incidentally representing 90% of media business volume) while lightly decreasing visibility of the rest (representing at the time grossly 10% and thus screwed anyway). this is no news whatsoever and has nothing to do with iron maiden, of course. it's just hard fact and all what big media has been claiming all these years was nothing but pure bullshit. this is old news, the whole issue is so old it doesn't even matter any more, the business has already changed.
It's not the money you spend, it's how you spend it.
this, and it's not just medical resources. it's education too, to a great extent.
and regarding the article, I would like to point out that injection of money from the outside would in most (or possibly all) cases not be even necessary: just get the rich in the country to pay their fair share of taxes, that would be more than enough.
the purpose of all this drama is to scare off the end user. with isps that's one totally different relationship, no crowd control involved whatsoever, just business.
i have to assume you are a shill. if you actually were a sysadmin declaring himself incapable of managing a business network without [software_x:=internet_explorer] you would be simply ridiculing yourself. that's not just incompetence, it's absurd. actually... dwight, is that you?
A compromise solution is that the preview pane shows text-only previews. That keeps the majority of the productivity, and should close these holes we speak of. Thoughts?
that has been a feature in every half-decent mail client for ages, now. surprisingly, a notable absence in thunderbird, but then thunderbird can at least be told never to open images directly in the preview or views and not to render any html. that people still accepts/uses html in email, after decades of exploits and scams, somehow shows to what extent safe communications are a lost battle.
here's another compromise solution, at least for business communications: instead of those absolutely irrelevant 10 lines of pompous and pointless disclaimer that every company likes to include at the end of each and every email, they could write one that explicitly disallows any malicious parsing of embedded images, voilà. that surely would scare the shit out of those nasty exploiters!
that reminds me of the famous "gallician" virus that circulated a while ago. it was a text-only virus, which informed you that by reading it you had just been pwned, appealing to your honor for duely destroying your windows registry after having manually resent the virus to your contacts.
What do you mean, then? Are you going by the strict "it can be touched" meaning of tangible? I was going by the looser "it can be perceived" meaning. Either way, advertisements are more tangible than software but less tangible than houses.
tangible as in "it has real value for me for my money", meaning it is still unclear that there is a product to speak of, more than the sole promise.
if you sell buckets full of sand in the desert, that's pretty tangible, and you can it product if you brand it "magical thrist quenching sand". and you might even sell some, but you will burn your segment out pretty quickly. still a product in the marketing sense: a promise of value in exchange for cash. but... meh!
targeted advertising is still an experiment. nobody knows for sure if it works in general sense, if it does only in specific contexts and to what extent, or if it can even backlash. it's just the next big thing of the moment, the hype is high and nobody wants to risk missing out. a typical bubble setting btw. and i haven't seen serious and honest figures yet, i wonder if there are. my particular experience (as a target) tells me it's a complete failure, but then i know people that find it useful (as targets) and are even pleased, but they are rare. average person in my circles (in the boradest possible definition) doesn't give a shit on those ads at all, even if they don't block them. the subconscious imprint of brands clearly works, but there's no hard evidence that all the "targeting" thing is worth the extra cpu cycles, as opposed to classical indiscriminate media flooding. it could as well be sand buckets. no 'tangible' product if you happen to live in the desert!:D
In the 90s, companies were spending gobs of money to prepare for Y2K. When that came and went without a hitch, all that money evaporating and may have caused investors to question their other high risk ventures.
fixing y2k was a necessity, the only expected return on that investment was survival, because most businesses would have been incapable of operating if not. there sure was a small boom in the dev sector because of high demand, but it was no bubble, it even had a fixed eol date, 12/31/1999. there was no artificial overpricing, money did not "evaporate", it went mostly into salaries for actual work done that needed to be done, and there was a great deal of it. big consulting firms did ofc sell expensive bs, but they always do.
Social networking companies are at risk because they don't have a tangible product just as dotcom companies didn't in 2000. But the hardware companies aren't going away.
nowadays any gossip webpage can be called a "tech company" if you just host it on monster servers, and maybe write a companion mobile app. signs of the times!
people are eager to stay up here instead of being shifted back down to programming
they don't do programming in your team? what is it that you're actually managing?
anyway, you did a good sum up of what a good manager is up to. if that's you're case, then congratulations.
and getting back to the issue: you're a rarity. i know a few like you. in contrast, i know of a great deal of lousy coders, but i know a great deal of excellent ones too. my point here is that given that good management so exceptional i assume it has a lot to do with very personal aptitudes and character, and thus all "technical" and "professional" considerations about management (from methodolgies to best practices passing through a bunch of mere stereotypes and buzztalk) is irrelevant. as i find most of the "business" approach to building things, not by coincidence. after almost 30 years in business, how someone can still buy into this "we gonna make supah exciting things together" corporate bs is beyond me. and seeing young people being convinced that management is some sort of "more stellar" ocupation that laying bricks just makes me feel sad about society. but, mind you, i'm just an old coder.
If you don't make any effort to appreciate how difficult and important skillful management is, how can you expect understanding from the other side of the aisle? Just because someone is over a team or has the word "manager" in their title doesn't mean they know what they are doing any more than a half of the coders out there -- be honest, at least half the code you read is garbage. It doesn't mean that coding is a trivial skill any more than management is a trivial skill. If anything, it proves the opposite.
in an ideal world you might be right but it's clear to me that GP speaks from experiencie: if good coders are scarce, good managers are a rarity. so there would be some logic in the assumption that management is more complex/difficult/skill demanding than coding, but then good management almost never happens, actually.
it's a fuzzy profession. you know a good manager when you almost don't notice he's been there for a while, by his mid/long term effects. bad code can be spotted immediately, but bad management takes time to judge and even then it's often tolerated because it's a trust position, failure can't be inequivocally attributed (even in absence of lame excuses or scapegoats which are common) and anyway bad management is the norm (so the replacement won't probably be any better), and even so stuff gets most of the time done somehow anyway, so why bother. that's the perfect soup for incompetents and assholes to bubble naturally up, do the math.
i don't have any problem being a bricklayer for a living, and doing it right. call me dull weirdo now, and get out of the way, i have bricks to lay!:D
The more central and pertinent issue might be that people feel powerless
that's definitely an issue, but GP's irony is spot on, the central issue is that most of us simply don't know / don't care. if we did we'd eventually find out that we're not so powerless after all.
God bless America.
abuse of power comes with power, it's not an "US mentality" thing. it's just US (elite) has (still) way too much power (right now), but don't believe for a second that EU powers, despite all of the public righteousness in these topics, don't incur in the very same abuse aswell. and even though current US policing is strongly questionable there's absolutely no sign that the world will be better off after the foreseeable coming power shift. quite the contrary.
the majority of audience here is us-american and the "debate" around creationism is a typical and unique us-american meme, it's kind of a ritual they pull off at every occasion. for the first 30 seconds it can even be funny. if you take it seriously it quickly becomes creepy.
i would assume alqaeda to have access to the same technology and resources the us government has. however, you don't really need a 0-day disease to launch a biological attack against a populated area to great effect, there is enough nasty stuff laying around to hit the headlines big time, any time. so, yes, this particular case of secrecy is likely for a different reason (which, obviously, is whithheld too).
In this case, it's more like offering the cow better food (UI tweaks, etc), which in turn gives the consumer higher quality meat (more time on Facebook).
no. can you even read, son? quoting GP, please take your time:
The primary purpose of the browser extension is to hide crap that you (the product) don't want to see, but advertisers (the customer) want you to see. Advertisers want to know who's clicking on trending crap - hiding it with a browser extension hurts Facebook's customers.
facebook's business model is to get paid for showing crap to you while you use it. if they can't reasonably assure their customers that the crap will be seen by you, then they're out of business, no matter the user experience, period.
of course facebook can't do shit if some plugin in the wild does just that. at most they could try to fool it by changing their interface. er, periodically, because this would be a cat&mouse game. so they don't really bother as long as the plugin doesn't become too popular. but obviously they don't want it promoted on their own platform either, that's what this is all about.
Facebook's TOS and developer EULA states (in layman's terms) that you can't make any changes to how the site is presented to the user.
since facebook has absolutely no say in what some user can or can't run on his own computer while using facebook, this part of the TOS is not only remarkably moronic but simply moot. you people really take this bs seriously?
thanks for the gossip, anyway. i still don't give a shit.
... there is something of value to preserve. i know, all the knowledge and that. but, honestly, looking at past and present, if i'd want to build a civilization in some billion years, i'd rather start from scratch. don't spoil them. humanity, what a troll!
Slashdot Mirror
you hear loud noises coming from the drain ...
email protocol is irrelevant here.
if you use a local email client, what is relevant is under which circumstances it decides to accesss those image urls for display, regardless of protocol.
if you use a web client you are screwed anyway (as in "you have absolutely no control over what is accessed by whom and when").
have modpoints, couldn't find the "cheap fud" tag ... /.!
so twitter is dead. my condolences. #sarcasm
OP is educational. #sarcasm is irrelevant.
Another breathless story about how piracy is maybe good because it might somehow act as free advertising, wow this one is just totally different from the last 43, because this time it's heavy metal. I'm finally convinced, let's roll back the clock and turn napster back on.
even before napster was shut down there were already quite a few serious studies demonstrating that p2p actually increases the sales of the few top titles (incidentally representing 90% of media business volume) while lightly decreasing visibility of the rest (representing at the time grossly 10% and thus screwed anyway). this is no news whatsoever and has nothing to do with iron maiden, of course. it's just hard fact and all what big media has been claiming all these years was nothing but pure bullshit. this is old news, the whole issue is so old it doesn't even matter any more, the business has already changed.
It's not the money you spend, it's how you spend it.
this, and it's not just medical resources. it's education too, to a great extent.
and regarding the article, I would like to point out that injection of money from the outside would in most (or possibly all) cases not be even necessary: just get the rich in the country to pay their fair share of taxes, that would be more than enough.
the purpose of all this drama is to scare off the end user. with isps that's one totally different relationship, no crowd control involved whatsoever, just business.
I thought it was obvious that it was a piss-take on US foreign policy back when I saw it on release.
critics, you know ...
medic!!!!
http://i.imgur.com/H4lcN.jpg
fuck businessland! xD
i have to assume you are a shill. if you actually were a sysadmin declaring himself incapable of managing a business network without [software_x:=internet_explorer] you would be simply ridiculing yourself. that's not just incompetence, it's absurd. actually ... dwight, is that you?
A compromise solution is that the preview pane shows text-only previews. That keeps the majority of the productivity, and should close these holes we speak of. Thoughts?
that has been a feature in every half-decent mail client for ages, now. surprisingly, a notable absence in thunderbird, but then thunderbird can at least be told never to open images directly in the preview or views and not to render any html. that people still accepts/uses html in email, after decades of exploits and scams, somehow shows to what extent safe communications are a lost battle.
here's another compromise solution, at least for business communications: instead of those absolutely irrelevant 10 lines of pompous and pointless disclaimer that every company likes to include at the end of each and every email, they could write one that explicitly disallows any malicious parsing of embedded images, voilà. that surely would scare the shit out of those nasty exploiters!
that reminds me of the famous "gallician" virus that circulated a while ago. it was a text-only virus, which informed you that by reading it you had just been pwned, appealing to your honor for duely destroying your windows registry after having manually resent the virus to your contacts.
What do you mean, then? Are you going by the strict "it can be touched" meaning of tangible? I was going by the looser "it can be perceived" meaning. Either way, advertisements are more tangible than software but less tangible than houses.
tangible as in "it has real value for me for my money", meaning it is still unclear that there is a product to speak of, more than the sole promise.
if you sell buckets full of sand in the desert, that's pretty tangible, and you can it product if you brand it "magical thrist quenching sand". and you might even sell some, but you will burn your segment out pretty quickly. still a product in the marketing sense: a promise of value in exchange for cash. but ... meh!
targeted advertising is still an experiment. nobody knows for sure if it works in general sense, if it does only in specific contexts and to what extent, or if it can even backlash. it's just the next big thing of the moment, the hype is high and nobody wants to risk missing out. a typical bubble setting btw. and i haven't seen serious and honest figures yet, i wonder if there are. my particular experience (as a target) tells me it's a complete failure, but then i know people that find it useful (as targets) and are even pleased, but they are rare. average person in my circles (in the boradest possible definition) doesn't give a shit on those ads at all, even if they don't block them. the subconscious imprint of brands clearly works, but there's no hard evidence that all the "targeting" thing is worth the extra cpu cycles, as opposed to classical indiscriminate media flooding. it could as well be sand buckets. no 'tangible' product if you happen to live in the desert! :D
Social networking companies do have a product: advertising.
he said "tangible". that all the buzz about targeted advertising is actually worth the money is still speculation.
In the 90s, companies were spending gobs of money to prepare for Y2K. When that came and went without a hitch, all that money evaporating and may have caused investors to question their other high risk ventures.
fixing y2k was a necessity, the only expected return on that investment was survival, because most businesses would have been incapable of operating if not. there sure was a small boom in the dev sector because of high demand, but it was no bubble, it even had a fixed eol date, 12/31/1999. there was no artificial overpricing, money did not "evaporate", it went mostly into salaries for actual work done that needed to be done, and there was a great deal of it. big consulting firms did ofc sell expensive bs, but they always do.
Social networking companies are at risk because they don't have a tangible product just as dotcom companies didn't in 2000. But the hardware companies aren't going away.
nowadays any gossip webpage can be called a "tech company" if you just host it on monster servers, and maybe write a companion mobile app. signs of the times!
people are eager to stay up here instead of being shifted back down to programming
they don't do programming in your team? what is it that you're actually managing?
anyway, you did a good sum up of what a good manager is up to. if that's you're case, then congratulations.
and getting back to the issue: you're a rarity. i know a few like you. in contrast, i know of a great deal of lousy coders, but i know a great deal of excellent ones too. my point here is that given that good management so exceptional i assume it has a lot to do with very personal aptitudes and character, and thus all "technical" and "professional" considerations about management (from methodolgies to best practices passing through a bunch of mere stereotypes and buzztalk) is irrelevant. as i find most of the "business" approach to building things, not by coincidence. after almost 30 years in business, how someone can still buy into this "we gonna make supah exciting things together" corporate bs is beyond me. and seeing young people being convinced that management is some sort of "more stellar" ocupation that laying bricks just makes me feel sad about society. but, mind you, i'm just an old coder.
If you don't make any effort to appreciate how difficult and important skillful management is, how can you expect understanding from the other side of the aisle? Just because someone is over a team or has the word "manager" in their title doesn't mean they know what they are doing any more than a half of the coders out there -- be honest, at least half the code you read is garbage. It doesn't mean that coding is a trivial skill any more than management is a trivial skill. If anything, it proves the opposite.
in an ideal world you might be right but it's clear to me that GP speaks from experiencie: if good coders are scarce, good managers are a rarity. so there would be some logic in the assumption that management is more complex/difficult/skill demanding than coding, but then good management almost never happens, actually.
it's a fuzzy profession. you know a good manager when you almost don't notice he's been there for a while, by his mid/long term effects. bad code can be spotted immediately, but bad management takes time to judge and even then it's often tolerated because it's a trust position, failure can't be inequivocally attributed (even in absence of lame excuses or scapegoats which are common) and anyway bad management is the norm (so the replacement won't probably be any better), and even so stuff gets most of the time done somehow anyway, so why bother. that's the perfect soup for incompetents and assholes to bubble naturally up, do the math.
i don't have any problem being a bricklayer for a living, and doing it right. call me dull weirdo now, and get out of the way, i have bricks to lay! :D
The more central and pertinent issue might be that people feel powerless
that's definitely an issue, but GP's irony is spot on, the central issue is that most of us simply don't know / don't care. if we did we'd eventually find out that we're not so powerless after all.
God bless America.
abuse of power comes with power, it's not an "US mentality" thing. it's just US (elite) has (still) way too much power (right now), but don't believe for a second that EU powers, despite all of the public righteousness in these topics, don't incur in the very same abuse aswell. and even though current US policing is strongly questionable there's absolutely no sign that the world will be better off after the foreseeable coming power shift. quite the contrary.
ok, thanks, guys.
to my skull: woosh!
Man, the real story here is the skull.
the majority of audience here is us-american and the "debate" around creationism is a typical and unique us-american meme, it's kind of a ritual they pull off at every occasion. for the first 30 seconds it can even be funny. if you take it seriously it quickly becomes creepy.
i would assume alqaeda to have access to the same technology and resources the us government has. however, you don't really need a 0-day disease to launch a biological attack against a populated area to great effect, there is enough nasty stuff laying around to hit the headlines big time, any time. so, yes, this particular case of secrecy is likely for a different reason (which, obviously, is whithheld too).
and things like Skype just didn't play nice
skype doesn't play nice on any platform. it's was shaky software even before ms bought it.
she really just didn't like it
what can i say. time to upgrade to a new wife, maybe?
I don't want to do this for the rest of my life.
how come?
I'm not sure how to find a good way to transition from programmer to somebody with more responsibility.
sort of implies that you have been unresponsible as a developer. fits well with asking those questions. good luck.
In this case, it's more like offering the cow better food (UI tweaks, etc), which in turn gives the consumer higher quality meat (more time on Facebook).
no. can you even read, son? quoting GP, please take your time:
The primary purpose of the browser extension is to hide crap that you (the product) don't want to see, but advertisers (the customer) want you to see. Advertisers want to know who's clicking on trending crap - hiding it with a browser extension hurts Facebook's customers.
facebook's business model is to get paid for showing crap to you while you use it. if they can't reasonably assure their customers that the crap will be seen by you, then they're out of business, no matter the user experience, period.
of course facebook can't do shit if some plugin in the wild does just that. at most they could try to fool it by changing their interface. er, periodically, because this would be a cat&mouse game. so they don't really bother as long as the plugin doesn't become too popular. but obviously they don't want it promoted on their own platform either, that's what this is all about.
Facebook's TOS and developer EULA states (in layman's terms) that you can't make any changes to how the site is presented to the user.
since facebook has absolutely no say in what some user can or can't run on his own computer while using facebook, this part of the TOS is not only remarkably moronic but simply moot. you people really take this bs seriously?
thanks for the gossip, anyway. i still don't give a shit.
... there is something of value to preserve. i know, all the knowledge and that. but, honestly, looking at past and present, if i'd want to build a civilization in some billion years, i'd rather start from scratch. don't spoil them. humanity, what a troll!